Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Astonished]

Why are you talking about hair? I'm talking about moral subjectivity. Do you really not grasp that?

If you are using different value judgements for the same act based on who the actor is, you are practicing moral relativity. This horseshit about ontology is irrelevant.

Yes, because as long as you are not committing a category error, the logic is the same.
And again, you seem to be confusing relative with subjective, which is the point; I was trying to make.

---

Try extrapolating it out to different nations and maybe that will help, and remove god from the equation (although Israeli schoolchildren were tested in this way and said it wasn't wrong for a god-backed army to do the same thing as a Chinese army that they did consider wrong). Is it wrong for X nation to gas the minority population that disagrees with the ruling party, but not for Y nation to do the same? If not then there's no way to justify any other party's immunity to this. Distinctions destroy the entire argument.

I find that morality more often than not, has to do with the why, rather than the what (when it comes down to it).

I agree, it's a result-oriented system with intention playing a big part behind the actions when well-being is the axiom. Things like the identity of the agent are superfluous largely, is all I'm getting at. Unless it comes down to things like a family member choosing between who they help or save, either their fewer loved ones or numerous strangers (or the sinking lifeboat situation where you have to choose which people to save based on attributes; but then that gets super subjective); but then that's one of the rarities and not a general rule, as are most things wherein there are certain situations where even a truly reprehensible act can be morally permissible depending on circumstances. And even if you can't call saving your own single child at the expense of five strangers' children, it can certainly be understood why a person would do that, and even if we were the parents of those lost children, we could empathize by putting ourselves in that parent's shoes and admitting we would probably do the same thing even if we generally feel that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.